IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF THE No. 68524
GUARDIANSHIP OF THE PERSON
AND ESTATE OF JOSE PORFIRIO
AGUILAR GUARDADO, AN ADULT.
FILED
CARMEN BALTIERRA-GOMEZ, FEB 1 2 2016
Appellant,
vs.
JOSE PORFIRIO AGUILAR
GUARDADO,
Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from an order entered in a guardianship
proceeding. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark
County; Cynthia Dianne Steel, Judge.
In the order, the district court appointed appellant as
respondent's legal guardian but denied appellant's request for special
findings that would allow respondent to file a petition with the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant
juvenile status (SIJS). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) (2012); 8 C.F.R. §
204.11 (2009). On appeal, appellant contends that the district court
refused to consider evidence and argument as to the requested findings,
and appellant asks that the decision be reversed and remanded.
Before petitioning for SIJS, a child must be under the age of
21 years and obtain an order from a state court finding that the child is
dependent on a juvenile court or has been placed under the custody of an
individual appointed by the court, that the child's reunification with one or
both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment or similar
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 194m 44,Wo 1 CD Lc7n
grounds under state law, and that it is not in the child's best interest to be
returned to the country of the child's origin. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)
(2012); 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 (2009); see also Matter of Marcelina M.-G. v.
Israel S., 112 A.D.3d 100, 108-09 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013).
In this case, appellant requested findings that respondent had
been abandoned by his parents and that it would be in his best interest to
remain with appellant rather than be returned alone to El Salvador, his
country of origin. When the petition for guardianship was filed, however,
respondent was 20 years old and no longer a child under state law. See
NRS 159.023(1) (defining a "minor" in guardianship proceedings as a
person who is less than 18 years of age); cf. NRS 432B.040 (defining child
in a dependency proceeding as a person under the age of 18). Appellant
has cited no persuasive legal authority permitting the district court to find
under state law that an adult ward has been abandoned by his parents.
See In re Jessica M., 35 A.3d 1072, 1074 (Conn. 2012) (holding that state
court lacked statutory authority to adjudicate petitioner a neglected child
after she turned 18 and rejecting argument under collateral consequences
doctrine that adjudication of neglect would allow her to seek SIJS relief);
cf. In re Guardianship of N.M., 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 75, 358 P.3d 216, 220
(2015) (allowing appointment of general guardian for a child upon a
finding of parental abandonment).' In Nevada juvenile dependency
We note that other states have amended their statutes to address
age-related issues implicated by SIJS. See Cal. Prob. Code § 1510.1(a)(1)
(2016) (allowing court to appoint by consent a guardian for an individual
between 18 and 21 years of age in connection with a petition to make SIJS
findings); Fla. Stat. § 39.5075(6) (2005) (extending dependency jurisdiction
for individuals over 18 years old with pending SIJS petitions); Md. Code
continued on next page . .
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ee
proceedings, NRS 432B.594(1)-(2) allows the juvenile court to retain
jurisdiction over a child until the age of 21 with the child's consent, but
only if the court had jurisdiction over the child when the child reached 18,
which is not the case here. Thus, the district court did not err in refusing
to enter findings that respondent had been abandoned. See Rennels v.
Rennels, 127 Nev. 564, 569, 257 P.3d 396, 399 (2011) (noting that legal
questions are reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
a-A-40L.--- , C.J.
Parraguirre
2tc J. \UR.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Cynthia Dianne Steel, District Judge, Family t Division
Fountas & Associates
Eighth District Court Clerk
• . continued
Ann., Fam. Law, § 1-201 (a), (b)(10) (2014) (defining child as under the age
of 21 and giving equity court jurisdiction over SIJS factual findings); N.Y.
Fam. Ct. Act § 661(a) (McKinney 2011) (defining minor as a person under
21 who consents to the appointment or continuation of a guardian after
age 18). Our Legislature has yet to address the issue, and we cannot
change or rewrite the relevant statutes. See Holiday Ret. Corp. v. State of
Nev. Div. Indus. Relations, 128 Nev. 150, 154, 274 P.3d 759, 761 (2012) ("It
is the prerogative of the Legislature, not this court, to change or rewrite a
statute.").
'In light of our disposition, we deny as moot appellant's February
10, 2016, request to have this matter heard before February 21, 2016.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A loe,